Since there are so many law and criminal show on television today, most people probably have hear the term, “Habeas Corpus,” but not many really know what it means. After reading this article, you will know what it means, and why it is used.

Habeas Corpus is one of the oldest kinds of court actions and it goes far back into English law. It is recognized and guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the Public Safety may require it.
Article I, Section 9, U.S. Constitution

A Habeas corpus action is started by a prisoner, or detainee, filing a petition, asking for relief. The matter complained about must be the legality of imprisonment, or detention. The relief sought is release from illegal confinement. The petition should be filed against the person or authority who is the official custodian. The person filing the paper is called a petitioner; the warden or superintendent is called the respondent in the case.

The court will then order the respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue why the prisoner should not be released. Habeas corpus is regarded as an urgent legal action the response by the custodian is usually required in a very short time, usually 10 days or less and all actions by the court should be taken in a prompt manner. Habeas corpus actions are treated as emergency matters, and as such go to the top of court dockets, ahead of other types of civil cases.

After an attorney for the custodian responds, the court may dismiss the petition, hold a hearing to obtain more information, or grant the request and issue a writ. Only courts can issue writs.

Habeas corpus is Latin for “have the body.” It is an order directed to the person with custody, commanding him to “have,” or produce, the body of the person who is in custody before the court.

There are actually several types of habeas corpus, and all of them have Latin names. The most common is the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, produce the body. Two other types are brought up occasionally in corrections and those are habeas corpus ad prosequendum, this writ is written by the court to bring the prisoner to court for purposes of prosecution. Habeas corpus ad testificandum is an order to bring a prisoner to court to give evidence in a court case. Some courts still use these kinds prisoner to court to give evidence in a court case, although, as time goes by, the courts are using these terms less and less.

There are provisions for federal prisoners to seek habeas corpus relief. This is found under Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 2241. There is also authority for federal courts to consider applications from state prisoners for release under Title 28, U. S. Code, Section 2254. However, this section provides that federal habeas corpus relief is only available if the petitioner has exhausted the remedies that are available for such relief in the state where he/she is confined or detained.

Because all states also have provisions for habeas corpus review by state courts, there are few state prisoners who can win release from custody through federal habeas corpus actions. As a general rule, federal courts are not quick to jump into habeas matters involving state prisoners, but defer to the states to take care of such problems in their own courts, as the federal law contemplates.

 

This information is for informational and educational purposes only, and is not intended to take the place of an attorney or legal counsel.  Please consult directly with an attorney for any legal questions you may have.

Evidence can be the most important part of a trial. It can either convict the accused, or set them free. There are specific types of evidence, and ways this evidence may be used during a trial. What evidence is and how it may be used will be explained here.

There are four different types of evidence, they are:

1. Witness Testimony, given under oath.
2. Exhibits that are tangible items admitted at the proceedings.
3. Stipulated facts to which the lawyers have agreed.
4. Judicial notice of facts that are common knowledge.

Witness testimonies may come in two different varieties. They can be either a lay witness or expert witness. The lay witness can be like you or me, regular everyday people, who testifies as to matters of which we have personal knowledge.

The expert witness would be a psychiatrist or other professional who gives testimony about conclusions he or she has drawn based on his or her expertise on any given subject.

Exhibits usually come in three varieties which are:

1. Real evidence, such as the actual gun that shot the victim, or a torn and stained piece of clothing, worn by a woman who was attacked and raped.
2. Demonstrative exhibits are created evidence rather than “real” evidence. Examples such as pictures of the crime scene and how it was found. Or an example can be demonstrated on another person as to how the victim could have been strangled.
3. Documented exhibits such as business records, diaries, letters, and court transcripts are just a few of the types of documents that may be used during a trial. Documentary exhibits are something of a hybrid in that they contain testimony, but they are “tangible,” (Something you can touch), and available for the trier-of-fact to scrutinize.

Stipulated facts are evidence. When there is no factual dispute about certain information, the proper way for the information to be offered is by stipulation. They are entered into between parties through counsel and are reviewed by the court. Stipulated facts are provided in writing or are read to the trier-of-fact.

Judicial notice is taken of those items the court believes are “common knowledge.” Such information is presented to the trier-of-fact, without any proof. The court does not take judicial notice often though, but is does occur. Common knowledge can be anything that the public already knows, like the Grand Canyon is in Arizona, or the United States consists of 50 states. Judicial notice is rarely used and in order to introduce evidence, there must be either a qualified witness to talk about it, display it, or a stipulation from the opposing counsel agreeing to it.

There are also some things that are not allowed into evidence and do not qualify, they are:

1. Statements, arguments, questions, or objections made by attorneys.
2. Information obtained outside the court room by the judge or jurors, which is not part of the proceedings.
3. Testimony that the court specifically strikes or excludes.
4. Testimony or exhibits admitted for limited purposes by the court are not evidence for anything other than the limited purpose for which they court admitted them.
5. Jury instructions given to the jury by the judge

Our judicial system covers the entire society and the consequences of incorrect evidence can cause insurmountable damage to a person or a group of people, there must be a more formalized and reliable way of getting to the truth. Both sides have the right to tell their side of the story. However, in order to avoid injustice, the system must restrict the giving of information in such a way as to both promote truth and avoid mistakes to the greatest extent possible. Rules of evidence exist to safeguard against injustice, as much as possible. What is equal is for one, must be equal for all.

US Government History

There were actually two different Constitutions, the first in 1776 and the one we use today was written in 1790, with the Bill of Rights added a year later.

When the colonists arrived in what we call today the Untied States, they built and established colonies, from these colonies the first thirteen states were established. Most of these states pretty much ran themselves by their own governments; however, they were still had to answer to England and her laws. Each state varied their relationship with England, and as time went on, these states and the people did not like being told what to do by England. They risked their lives to get away from England, and they felt they should become independent from her long reach. This feeling was shared by all thirteen states and this is what led to the ware for independence.

Their declaration of independence was issued in 1776, but actual independence was not won until 1781. Even before their independence was declared, each state had a group of men to meet and address issues of national concerns. This was the very first Continental Congress and their first meeting was in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774.

Even though the Continental Congress had national representation, they did not have the authority to make binding laws. Their job was to raise armies and conduct diplomacy and they did this until 1781. By the time the first Declaration of Independence was adopted, there had been discussion in the Continental Congress concerning the adoption of a constitution to formally recognize a confederacy of the thirteen colonies.

On June 7, 1776 it was declared that the United Colonies were free and independent states and they absolved themselves from all allegiance to the British Crown. On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence, which was mostly written by Thomas Jefferson, was adopted. In 1781, the Continental Congress was disbanded and replaced by the Confederation of Congress, which had much more authority than their predecessors, and became the most powerful political entities. In the same year, the colonies adopted the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. It was proclaimed in the Articles that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not expressly delegated to the United States.

Politically, the United States was a loose union of independent states and members of the Congress were little more than ambassadors representing their states. As stated in the Articles, the states entered into a “firm league of friendship.” This “league” however, did not take long to prove itself unworkable. This was because the states were so far apart from each other, and transportation between the states took so long to get from one to the other, information would everywhere and secrets could not be kept.

The national government was responsible for negotiation treaties with foreign governments, when it came to the states however; the national government was subservient financially. It did not have the authority to raise revenues directly from its citizens. The Articles provided that the states were to make contributions to the national treasury but the national government did not have the authority to actually make the states pay.

As a result, the national government suffered financial difficulties because of the lack of funds. Under the Articles of Confederation, the nation was fragmented and the national government too weak to solve its problems. After a few years of not getting any better, the decision to abolish the Articles and make a new constitution was decided. To preserve the integrity of the processes, they agreed to keep their proceedings secret until it was finished.

A new governmental structure was created in the new constitution. It gave our government more power, but the power was governed by what was in the Constitution. The federal government has continued to grow in size and power under this Constitution. However, it is still governed by what was written by our forefathers over two hundred years ago.

Persons accuse of a crime are assumed to posses criminal responsibility. It is the general concept that people are free to choose either to commit a crime or not. Sometimes this is not the case, there are situations in life where a person has no choice in the matter whether to commit a crime or not. The situation may be a matter of life or death, and the reason for self preservation will be the key for a good defense. Usually when someone has to ask “What does a criminal defense attorney do?” then they probably have never needed one.

Sometime the law allows a person to use physical force against another, whether it is for self-preservation or the protection of another, or even to protect one’s property, these are all acceptable self-defense cases. You and your criminal defense attorney are going to have to show at least four instances of why you had to defend yourself in such an extreme way. Your criminal defense attorney will have to show the judge or jury that (1) your confrontation was unprovoked by you, (2) that you were in immediate danger of bodily harm, (3) that your use of force was necessary in preventing that harm, and (4) that the amount of force you used was reasonable.

If you were in a position were you had to defend yourself against an attack from someone you think means you bodily harm, it is up to your criminal defense attorney to prove that you had a reasonable belief the actions you used to defend yourself were necessary and just to prevent either your own death, the death of another, or serious bodily harm. The force used against you must be unlawful or improper, and directed toward you without your consent.

Battered Wife Syndrome is a good example of self-defense. This defense is when a women has been subjected to physical and mental abuse continually by their husbands or significant others. Courts may find this case somewhat confusing because in most cases, women who kill their husbands also planned to kill them. If this is your situation, then your criminal defense attorney will have to prove to a jury or judge that under circumstances such as these, you had two choices — you can wait until your husband finally kills you or, kill your husband before he gets the opportunity to kill you.

In this case, it will be up to the state prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that killing your husband was not the only way out. For example: Why didn’t you just leave your husband and go stay with a friend or relative and file for divorce? Or, you could have gotten a court order to restrict your husband from approaching you within so many feet. If Battered Wife Syndrome is your defense, then your criminal attorney will prepare you for this type of questioning.

What does a criminal defense attorney do? The answer to that is, a lot. They will fight for your defense because he or she believes in your innocence and constitutional rights, no matter what you have done. If you were charged with a serious crime in the past, but today you are sleeping in your own soft bed and not on a concrete slab, you have your criminal defense attorney to thank for you being free, and that’s all anyone needs to know.

Since most television shows and movies have to make the legal system look exciting, the shows we see depict the law as mysterious because the hero of the story is always investigating some heinous crime and looking for a killer of that crime.

Most people probably never heard of the word Tort, and if they do hear it, they probably think its some kind of pastry. Tort law is a branch of civil law that is concerned with civil wrongs, but not contract actions. Contracts are when both parties agree on the same thing. Tort law imposes the duty to act with caution when it is possible to injure another or cause injury to another’s property. This law requires all people to act reasonably when conducting our lives.

Torts are intentional, negligent, or strict liability. The most common tort done today is accidental, usually caused by the negligent use of an automobile. When a person drives, he or she is responsible to operate the vehicle in a safe manor. Failure to use proper or reasonable care in the operation of that vehicle is a breach of duty, and if it causes injury to another person, it is a tort.

Intentional torts are crimes because of the harm done by one person to another. Assault and battery or medical wrongs are included in tort laws. The injured party may file suit for the injury suffered and then becomes a plaintiff against the defendant who has injured him/her. Two types of damages may be recovered in a civil tort suit: compensatory damages and punitive damages, however, some states do not allow punitive damages in tort actions.

Compensatory damages are awarded to cover the actual monetary loss suffered by the plaintiff. Usually paying to repair or restore property damages. If the damages occurred were personal, then compensatory damages would also cover medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering and cover an estimated loss of future earnings. A strict liability tort exists even though the person acted with extreme caution and did not intend to cause harm.

For example, say a demolition company is taking down a building with dynamite strategically placed as not to damage the property around the building. Even though they were very careful, when the building came down it damaged the one beside it.

Differences between criminal law and civil law are many. In civil law the person who brings the lawsuit (plaintiff), is the person who was injured. For example, say you go to a store and seek the help of a clerk. The clerk has just had a fight with her boyfriend and seeing you reminds her of him. She gets angry all over again and takes it out on you by throwing the object you asked for at you and it hits you in the head causing a cut requiring stitches. That clerk has just committed an assault on you and you take her to court to pay for medical bills, loss of wages, and pain and suffering.

This is a tort civil law case, the only punishment the clerk receives has to pay you for hitting you, but she will not go to jail. Criminal law would occur if you called the police on the clerk and she was arrested. Then it would be brought to the attention of a prosecuting attorney and s/he decides whether to press charges or not. If charges are filed, then it becomes the state charging her, as in state v. clerk.

These are just a few small examples of tort laws.

Before the Norman Conquest in 1066, England was populated by Anglo-Saxton tribes that regulated themselves through customs. When William conquered England in the same year, he proclaimed himself king and declared that all land, and all land-based rights, including the administration of justice, were now vested in the king. To make sure the local courts remained under his control, King William created a group of traveling judges called an Eyre, who represented him and kept an eye on the local courts

This Eyre’s responsibility was to make sure the king received his portion of forfeited property. A secondary responsibility of the Eyre, was to hear common pleas of disputes between the ordinary citizens.

It was the common-plea decisions made by judges in the Eyre that formed the body of legal precedent that became known as the common law. As the judges resolved common-plea disputes, they created precedents to be followed in similar cases, and because the common law was built case by case, it is sometimes called case law. Many of the laws that were created in medieval England became the basis of statutory law in modern England, as well as the United States.

The efforts of the Norman kings to centralize their power over all of England were not very successful and in 1215, the powerful landholders rebelled against the heavy taxation of the King John and eventually made him sign the Magna Carta. The purpose of the Magna Carta was to settle disputes between the king and his nobles by placing checks on royal power. Thus, the Magna Carta has formed the basis of what would later be called due process of law.

In the United States, criminal laws are almost entirely a product of constitutional authority and the legislative bodies that enact them. Criminal laws are products of the lawmaking bodies created by constitutional authority. Federal statutes are enacted by Congress, and state statutes are enacted by state legislature. Laws created by municipalities, by city councils which are called ordinances. Both federal and criminal statutes of each state, the definitions of these crimes, and the penalties associated with them, can be found in the penal codes for each jurisdiction.

Common law, also called case law, is a by-product of decisions made by trial and appellate court judges, who produce case law whenever they render a decision in a particular case. This decision becomes a precedent for deciding the outcomes of similar cases in the future. Even though decisions can be made by any trial judge to become a precedent, it is usually the written decisions of appellate court judges that are required to be in writing, these written decisions become known as common law. The principle of using precedents to guide future decisions in court cases are called stare decisis, which is the Latin term for stand by decided cases.

Although common law was an important source of criminal law in colonial America that is no longer the case today. Today, what were once known as common law crimes, as well as many of the new crimes of today, have been defined by statutes created by legislatures in all states. However, if it were not for the common laws of yesterday, who knows what type of laws we would have today? Common Law still remains an important part of our American history.

All of the laws in this country originate from England. Thankfully, many of the laws we have today are much kinder then when they were first originated. In early medieval Europe and England, disputed criminal charges were often decided by what was called back then an ordeal. In a trial by fire, the accused person would have to either place his or her hand in boiling water, or have a red hot piece of iron laid in his or her open hand causing a major wound. If the wound did not heal properly, that meant the person was guilty. This was based on the principle of divine intervention and the belief that divine forces would not allow an innocent person to be harmed.

In a trial by combat, the defendant could challenge his accuser to a duel, with the outcome determining the legitimacy of the accusation. However, the accuser had the option of finding an alternate to fight in his place. It was possible to acquire a “champion” to fight for you if the trial was one-sided. This evened the odds for you a bit.

Despite such reforms, the system of crime, punishment, law, and justices were chaotic. The lords of the great manors, who tried cases according to the local customs and rules, controlled the law. Although people generally agreed that such acts as theft, assault, treason, and blasphemy constituted crimes, the penalties were often arbitrary, discretionary, and very cruel. Public punishments were flogging, branding, beheading, with the head stuck on a stake to be witnessed by all, and burning, usually tied to a stake and still alive.

Settling trials by ordeal fell out of favor when the Catholic Church, at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, said that priests could no longer participate in trials by ordeal in disputed criminal cases, courts both in England and in the rest of Europe were not sure how to proceed. In England, the Church ban on ordeal meant that a new method of deciding criminal trials needed to be developed.

To fill in the gap, British justices adapted a method that had long been used to determine real estate taxes. Since the time of William the Conqueror, 12 knights in each district had been called before an inquest of the king’s justices to give local tax information, (early IRS tax men). Instead of the slow determination of taxes by judges, these twelve free and lawful men of the neighborhood would view the land and testify as to who last had peaceful possession so that an accurate accounting could be made. Since they were available when the king’s justices were present on circuit, the Writ of Novel Disseisin, first established in 1166 under Henry II, also required them to settle claim jumping disputes over land.

By 1219, the jury (which is from the Latin term jurati, to be sworn), called to decide land cases also began to hear criminal cases. The first jurors were like witnesses, telling the judge what they knew about the case; these courts were known as assise or assize (from the Latin assideo, to sit together). By the fourteenth century jurors had become the deciders of fact. The very first case that established the principle of jury trials was the Bushell’s case in 1670. A London jury acquitted William Penn, a leading Quaker and later the founder of Pennsylvania, of unlawful assembly in connection with his preaching in the street after the Quaker church was padlocked.

The foundation of the Child Welfare Laws was introduced into our society to protect those individuals who are vulnerable and unable to protect themselves. The concept was good, and would enable the government to protect children who were being neglected by those who were responsible to provide for and protect these children, but these laws have fallen short. Spurred on by acts committed against children, the child welfare laws have become more complex, not to mention more invasive to the American Family over the years.

The conception of these laws was good, but how much is too much of a good thing? Over the years the power and protection of the Child Welfare Agencies has grown until they are essentially an unstoppable force on the legal system of the United States. Today it is common place for an individual’s Constitution Rights to be routinely hindered by the Child Welfare Agencies.

The Child Welfare Agencies and the laws backing them have virtually grown into an entity separate and immune by constitutional law. Laws have been enacted that dictate nearly ever aspect of how you care for and raise your children. No longer do American Families have a say in how they will discipline their children; in addition, they no longer have control over their health care and education.

There is virtually no form of punishment that is considered legal by many state laws. This does not limit itself to physical punishment by any means. You cannot put your child in the corner for longer than one minute for each year of their age without committing a criminal offense. Any parent who has taken care of a child knows this is nearly a worthless form of discipline, especially for a child younger than four, or older than eight. If you ground your child or take away their toys, you are committing abuse in one form or another.

Discipline is not the only area of family life where Child Welfare has intruded. They also dictate your child’s health care and their education. If your doctor recommends giving your child fluoride and you are against it because of newly discovered health concerns, you are in the wrong. If your child’s teacher suggests putting your child on medication to modify their behavior and you refuse, as many parents should, you are committing the child neglect.

If your child’s school recommends that your child be in special education, but you do not agree and refuse to give them permission to educate your child a certain way, you are committing child neglect.

Again, the root of these laws were put into place for good reasons, but the entity of Child Welfare has grown to monstrous proportions that now use these laws to govern the lives of every family that has minor children.

Until recently, it was legal for a child welfare worker to search your home without a search warrant and to take custody of your children without due process which is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. It is still legal for Child Welfare to go to your child’s school and question them, as well as take custody of them without you ever being aware of it. One day they will just not come home and you will have no idea what happened to them.

You are not permitted to have a legal representative present when Child Welfare questions your child, and the representatives of these agencies are well known for coercing a child during interviews. Unfortunately it is difficult to prove without a legal representative present during the interview. Another tactic is to take what you say and turn it around or outright lie to the judge to get the orders that they are seeking. It is advisable to have a tape recorder and witnesses present whenever you are interviewed by a Child Welfare Worker.

In many states you do not have the constitutional right to trial by jury when it involves a child welfare case. This is under the guise of protecting the child so the fate of you and your family rests solely on the judge, who often is just another arm of the system.

How did all this get so out of hand and slip by the notice of the American Public? First and foremost, it began as a problem that only the low income had to deal with, but has grown to the point where today this could happen to anyone who has a child. The incentive to State Welfare Agencies to continue in this way and take custody of children – is the massive amounts of federal money they receive each year. The more children taken out of the home and placed in foster care, the more money they receive, and the amount far outweighs what a foster family receives from the state to care for children.

Slowly these problems are coming to the attention of congress and state law makers but there is still much that needs to be done to balance the protection of children with parental rights.

The entire state court systems, as well as federal court system, have at least two types of courts, trial courts and appellate courts, each state is also free to structure its judiciary in any manner. That is why there are significant differences found in different court systems.

Trial courts are what most people think of when they think of courts. Trial courts are where a case begins, where witnesses are heard and evidence is presented, sometimes to a jury and sometimes only to a judge. In the federal system, trial courts are known as United States District Courts. Since the United States is divided into 94 judicial districts, state boundaries are used to establish district limits. Every state has a least one district with larger states having more than one. State trial courts are known by various names, such as district, superior, county, and circuit courts but despite their variations, many courts are basically the same.

Appellate courts are different because they do not hold trials, instead they review the record from the trial court and examine it for mistakes, known as trial court error. Appellate courts usually hear arguments from the attorneys involved in the case under review. No witnesses are heard and no other evidence is admitted. After the appellate court reviews the evidence and examines it for errors, it makes its opinion. The appellate court can reverse, affirm, or remand the lower courts decision. When a decision is reversed, the appellate court is saying that a mistake was made during the trial and the trial court has to change its decision, when a decision is affirmed by the appellate court, it is agreeing with the decision the trial court made, and the first decision is left unchanged.

There are eleven judicial circuits in the United States, with one court of appeal in each circuit. There is also a court of appeal for Washington, D.C. and for the Federal Circuit, which means there’s thirteen United States Courts of Appeal in all.

The highest court in the country is the United States Supreme Court. Appeals from the circuit courts are taken to the Supreme Court, and appeals of federal issues from the state supreme courts are taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. Usually the people of this county have the right to appeal to any court, the U.S. Supreme Court has turned down 97% of cases appealed within the last few years. So it would be a good idea not to get into a real bind within the court system because the States Supreme Courts and federal circuit courts are often a defendant’s last chance to have his or her case heard.

Most state trial courts are known as courts of general jurisdiction. These courts have the authority to hear a broad range of cases, including civil law as well as criminal law. Courts of limited jurisdiction have only limited authority and may only hear specific types of cases. Some states employ systems that have specialized trial courts to handle domestic, civil, or criminal cases. No matter what type of problem a person has in this country, there is a court system to handle the problem.

Sooner or later, the question will begin to arise, of should I write my will? While it’s never really too early to write it down, there comes a time when you really should be giving the issue some real attention. There are many reasons not to leave a will, and it can be considerably time consuming and expensive to have one drawn up, so this article will go through briefly, some of the common advantages and disadvantages of your options. This guide is just a quick overview and if you are considering leaving a will, you should speak to an attorney or specialist.

Do nothing
Your first option is simply to do nothing. This is definitely the simplest option. It costs you nothing, in time or money, and you know that your assets will be distributed on your death.

However, there are some aspects of this option that may be of concern to you. First of all you will have no control over the disposal of your assets. They will be distributed according to your state’s law of intestacy. These rules are generally pretty fair, they will usually give most of your estate to your spouse or children. However, if this is exactly what you do not want, then not writing a will would be a very bad idea. Even if you are happy with your state’s rules, you should know that your state will have to go through Probate. You do not get to choose your guardian so if there was someone specific you wanted to carry out your last wishes, you should leave that in a will, and also make sure they are willing to do it for you.

Wills also give you significant tax planning potential and you will not be taking advantage of any of these. This may result in a much higher percentage of your estate going on tax than if you did some tax planning.

If you do leave a will, you can direct how the assets are shared out by leaving specific bequests to whomever you wish. These are very easy to set up, the only requirement is that they are clear and easily understood. You will have the freedom to choose your personal executor. You can provide specifically for children’s needs and you can give gifts to family members or to charities.

The disadvantages are that probate expenses and delays will mean your beneficiaries will not immediately benefit. You will have little scope for taking advantage of income tax deductions. Your finances will become public record and you will not get to feel the joy of giving during your own lifetime.

Another option you will have is to set up a trust. This can avoid probate expenses and the delays associated with probate. You will have significant tax planning opportunities. You can give now during your lifetime and see the benefits. You can have some control over the process if it begins during your lifetime. You can choose the trustees and change or revoke the trust. There are however significant legal formalities involved.

 

This information is for informational and educational purposes only, and is not intended to take the place of an attorney or legal counsel.  Please consult directly with an attorney for any legal questions you may have.

There are many ways to classify laws, but to narrow things down the law is divided into two broad categories — criminal law and civil law.

To make it easy, civil law is all law other than criminal law, such as property law, which governs transfer and ownership of property, and contract law, which is the law of personal agreements; doesn’t that make things so much clearer? When a person has a grievance and it can’t be settled any other way, than an action has to be taken were the courts will settle the differences. This type of law is called a tort law and it’s a civil action in which an individual asks to be compensated for personal harm done to him or her. The harm may be either physical or mental and includes such wrongful acts as trespassing, assault and battery, invasion of privacy, libel (false and injurious writings against you), and last but not least, slander (false or injurious writings).

Torts happen when someone is injured by the actions of another. Remember O.J. Simpson, who was found “not guilty” during his criminal trial, but was found “guilty” during his civil trial? This discrepancy happens because the standard of evidence for a finding is less in civil cases. Criminal trials are based on the evidence of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, while for a civil case the evidence has only to prove the “preponderance of the evidence.

A violation of civil law may also happen when a behavior indirectly causes injury that starts a chain of events that end in d–th. Some torts are similar to criminal acts and that is why a person can be held on both counts. For example, if one man hits another in the mouth, it is possible for the assailant to be charged by the state with assault and battery, be imprisoned, plus be sued by the victim in a tort action of assault in which the attacker will have to pay the victim for the damages he caused. An important similarity between criminal law and civil law is they have a common purpose, and this is to control people’s behavior by setting limits on what acts are permissible in this country.

The main purpose of criminal law is to give the state the power to protect the public from harm by punishing individuals whose actions threaten the social order of things. In tort law, the harm or injury is considered a private wrong, and the main concern is to compensate the victim for the harm that was inflicted on them. For criminal actions, the state initiates the legal proceedings by bringing charges against the criminal, then prosecuting him or her.

Once it is determined that a criminal law was broken, the state will then proceed to impose a sentence against the defendant such as imprisonment, probation, or a fine, payable to the state. In civil actions, the injured person must file an action in order to initiate proceedings, if the offender is found guilty, then he or she must pay restitution to the person that was harmed. Of all cases, criminal or civil laws that are brought up on charges, only 10% of these charges actually go to trial and are heard in front of a judge or jury. Most cases are settled out of court, by both parties coming to an agreement that they both can live with.